Courts should be last resort

Thursday

Jan 27, 2005 at 12:55 AMJan 27, 2005 at 5:49 AM

So, sue me! That, essentially, would be the the Marion County Public Library's response to anyone seeking the removal of a library book on grounds of obscenity, under a proposed policy revision before the Library Advisory Board.

The proposal, called "The Statement of Concern," is part of a broader revision of policies requested by the County Commission, which funds the library and appoints the Library Advisory Board. If revised, the policy would require any book challenge to go straight to the courts. It would be a dramatic departure from the citizen-driven process now in place.

The move comes in the wake of more than four years of contentious wrangling over three - count them, three - books individuals sought to have banished from the library's shelves because of their sexual content. In each case, though, the books remained. They remained because of the First Amendment, because of legal precedent. The County Commission's own attorney warned at the outset that any legal challenge to removing books would be successful - guaranteed. Debate over.

Of course, it was far from over. What unfolded in each case, from "It's Perfectly Normal' to "Eat Me," was pitched and protracted protests from obscenity opponents warning of moral collapse. That invariably drew counter-protests from free speech advocates warning of government censorship. Was it all too long and too redundant? For sure. Was it a refreshing and meaningful example of exercising our right to question public policy? Absolutely. Did we establish a better idea of our community standards? We think so.

In the end, we can think of few better subjects for spirited civic debate than limits of decency and limits of free speech. And that's what we got.

But the proposed policy would stifle such discourse too much.

Currently, a formal challenge is sent to a review committee, which recommends retention or removal to the library director, who then makes a ruling. If the director's ruling is appealed, the matter is taken to the Advisory Board for discussion, public comment and a recommendation, again, to Library Director Julie Sieg. Ultimately, Sieg can do as she pleases, but so far she has wisely followed the counsel of her panels.

Now, if approved, the proposed policy would certainly insulate Sieg and her staff from the fray. Cutting to the chase and dropping the question in the lap of the courts also makes public clashes pointless. A judge would decide, sparing the community what at times can only be described as an embarrassing spectacle.

We understand the spirit in which the revised challenge policy was drafted - to streamline the challenge process. And we agree streamlining is needed. But unless amended, it will deprive the average citizen of any opportunity to question the library. A library celebrates the free exchange of ideas. Without some appeal process to, logically, the Library Advisory Board, most library patrons would be unable to challenge a book. The legal costs in of themselves effectively would limit our right to protest.

The question of how to handle challenged library books has been discussed, debated and decided. Citizens were heard. Books were reviewed and recommendations made. Lawyers were counseled.

The process works.

In the end, the books remained in the library because the free exchange of ideas, even ideas we might find obscene, is a fundamental American ideal the courts - and most Americans - will defend almost every time.

Sending book challenges to the courts is not necessarily a bad idea, especially considering the time needlessly consumed rehashing the issue over the past four years. But there must be some form of appeal for the average library user concerned about the library's content.

The current process just needs to be steamlined. Set a speedy timetable for reviews and recommendations. Once a formal decision is rendered, then send unhappy citizens to the courts.

Our library is good and getting better because the community cares about it. Library policymakers shouldn't stifle community input at any level. Don't replace the current policy that has shown to work. Revise it, so the people can still have a say without filing a costly lawsuit.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.